Most times when somebody modifies an older car, they go all the way – drivetrain, suspension, interior, body, the works. It appears that the owner of this 1962 Mercury Comet S-22 for sale on Hemmings.com decided it needed a V-8 (Comets weren’t available with a V-8 in 1962) and corresponding improved brakes, but then decided to leave it looking stock, turning it into quite the sleeper. From the seller’s description:

27 Responses to “Hemmings Find of the Day – 1962 Mercury Comet S-22”

Why does it sit so high? Stock Comets did not sit like this back in the day and you’d think after almost 50 years the rear springs would be sagging and the extra weight of the 302 would bring the front end down too. With that ride height and those skinny tires, driving this thing has got to be a nightmare.

My ’61 Comet that was my Grandma’s car she bought new in 1960 sits the same way. I’ve known this car all my life and I know there have been no changes to the suspension. I still have the original 170 straight 6 with 3 on the tree. I even put wide whites on it like it had when it was new. Those tires are like riding on pizza cutters!

In total agreement about the ride height. I think with correct suspension settings and regular black steel wheels, visually this Comet would look better. Well, more to my taste anyway, lol. It’s quite an attractive early ’60s design, not often seen.

I have to agree the ride height looks way to high. The wheels look stock, but the red wheels do grab the eye so it may be a bit of an optical illusion. The last two photos the height looks closer to correct due to the camera angle. As for the springs.these cars had stiff springs to start with even when they were knew they rode like log wagons on all but the smoothest roads. They still sagged after years of use, so my guess is the car has had some serious suspension work. The one thing I have experienced is when doing restoration work is that what the book says doesn’t always look right to the eye.

I agree, It is sitting a little too high. You should not see the top of the whitewalls at the rear wheel openings. It is very nice, but I would go a few steps further and drop her back down just a couple inches, throw on a set of factory full wheel covers, tuck those dual exhausts in and it would be set.

The whitewalls are tucked much farther up under the fenders in the last shot than in the other two. The car appears to be in motion in the last shot too – maybe in a left-hand curve and the body is leaning toward the camera. FYI – these cars were supposed to be “baby Edsels” when first designed. Hence the wild taillights on the earlier ones. One of the regulars at the local cruise-in also has one of these with a 5.0 in it. It is red, sits low, and has later factory Comet/Cougar wheels. It is a really sharp looking car.

Looks like the rear springs were either re-arched or replaced with station wagon or later year V-8 ones. With accessories, a stock cast 6 cylinder weighed about 385; a stock all cast 302 weighed about 450. A late model 5.0 (302) w/aluminum Intake & water pump & steel tube manifolds can actually weigh less than the old straight 6 … or maybe they used heavier V-8 springs from a newer year during the front end rebuild. I agree it looks a bit off; the tire type / size isn’t specified so can’t judge how they fit versus original equipment.

The changes do make sense if it is intended as a nice weather driver and / or a sleeper. But if I was building it as a sleeper, it would have still had plain rims / caps with fat radials.

They’ve also used the photography to enhance the looks of the car. If I was guessing based on my 35 mm experience, they are using a telephoto lens with a fairly narrow depth of field to blur the foreground and background so you just concentrate on the car itself.

It looks like photoshop to me. He, most likely, traced a line around the top of the car and used a “blur” command. I’ve done that quite a few times in the past, just to separate the subject from the background. You can tell because the road/foreground is still sharp but directly over/behind the car has a blur to it.

I’m restoring one of these and it is definitely sitting too high. You can see in the third picture that the lower control arm is not level to the ground, but it should be. Likely used stiffer springs than original, maybe out of a Mustang, which has overcompensated for the expected additional weight of the 302.

The narrow tires are stock and were very disappointing visually. Also, the S-22 came with full wheel covers, not the dog dish style, and the rims were painted the same color as the body in the 62 models.

If the body is solid, dropping in the 302 or 5.0 with a T5 transmission is a relatively inexpensive upgrade but the handling will be a bit sketchy with the original suspension components. Good only in a straight line.

I’m installing 5.0 and T5 into mine with a Mustang II aftermarket front end with power rack and pinion and coilovers and rear coilovers as well. It’s the only way to improve the stance and ride height and get the handling the 5.0 deserves.

It seems that most folks don’t do much in the way of upgrades and mods to the Comet, like they do the the sister Falcon. Never really understood why. There are lots of photos of restomod first generation Falcons on the internet but very few early Comets.

I had a ’63 Falcon wagon with factory 260 V8, 3-speed manual. If I remember correctly, when Ford put the 260 in Falcons and Comets in the spring of 1963 they used suspension, drive train and brakes from intermediate V8 Fairlanes and Meteors. Wheels remained at 13 inches, which resulted in hard-to-find used rims because most 13s are four- not five-holers. The cars did have a normal ride height, however. Quickie V8 retrofits do not always include all the upgraded items. Also, the front shock towers were reinforced on V8 cars, a mixed blessing because instead of using thicker steel they sandwiched a piece on with spot welds, leaving a void that was an excellent breeding place for rust. It was a cool car, though, and my wife still misses it.

I disagree with the comments that say the car is sitting up too high; I think it just has undersized tires. Four-lug Falcons get this “pregnant rollerskate” look too when owners fit modern, low-profile radials to the 13-inch wheels – not that the original bias plies looked much better except in the optional station-wagon sizes.

Other than the tires, I think this is a great-looking car, and I love the upgrades.

We’ve had 62 Comets in my family since the late 60s including my current S-22 i’ve had for about 20 years. Ok here’s my take on this particular S-22. With fresh springs this car is very close to the stock ride height, the wheels are quite likely 14″ as i know of no disc brake conversions that allows retaining the stock 13″ wheels (4 or 5 lug). As far as the red wheels all S-22s came with red wheels regardless of the body color it was part of the S-22 package.

Well, after all the comments, The owner will still love their car. I’m a proud owner of a 1962 mercury comet S-22 custom sedan, with 59,449 original miles, in restoration being done by myself. This car has so many awesome lines, It’s amazing that this style of car is in my hands. I can’t wait till it is finished, it will be all original and so awesome.